If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by Benvolio

Logically, he should want an end to the immigration of which he complains. It would improve the Native American low employment problem.

Or maybe he like many Natives are legitimately astounded that Americans have the nerve to talk about illegal immigration like it's some kind of persecution they're all suffering considering that they all showed up as uninvited guests themselves. Double standards for the win.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by loki81

I would think that bringing up the Native American experience would be a reason to become more vehemently anti-immigration, considering how well it worked out for them.

Or it would highlight the people unable to comprehend the difference between people coming here wanting to work within the framework of the society present vs. the people who are overtly destroying it through warfare and conquest.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

Or maybe he like many Natives are legitimately astounded that Americans have the nerve to talk about illegal immigration like it's some kind of persecution they're all suffering considering that they all showed up as uninvited guests themselves. Double standards for the win.

This is what he was talking about. Of course there is another element of absolutely no immigration, but he obviously found it ironic that the "whites" would be the ones to complain about uninvited guests.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

Really? Is that the case?

Many native american tribes in the United States are similar to those in Northern Mexico. Thanks for the lack of logic.

He probably also missed the fact that North American Natives are basically the same people as Latin Americans who have Indio blood. The fact that two different competing European factions drew a line on a map doesn't change that.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

The entire history of human existence on planet Earth has consisted of people taking over lands that were already inhabited by others. But there's a big difference between invasions that took place in ancient times when the national boundaries that we know of today did not exist, and illegally entering an established country like the USA and expecting to be granted amnesty instead of entering legally and waiting in line. When the first Europeans arrived here hundreds of years ago, there was no actual country. There were simply various native tribes scattered about in what now constitutes the continental USA. So, saying that the USA was "founded on illegal immigration" is a foolish claim when speaking in favor the USA's current illegal immigration issue.

What's the point of having immigration laws in place that are intended to curtail the flow of immigrants into the USA if the government's gonna grant amnesty to the illegals just because they're already here?

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by JustMe5

The entire history of human existence on planet Earth has consisted of people taking over lands that were already inhabited by others. But there's a big difference between invasions that took place in ancient times when the national boundaries that we know of today did not exist, and illegally entering an established country like the USA and expecting to be granted amnesty instead of entering legally and waiting in line. When the first Europeans arrived here hundreds of years ago, there was no actual country. There were simply various native tribes scattered about in what now constitutes the continental USA. So, saying that the USA was "founded on illegal immigration" is a foolish claim when speaking in favor the USA's current illegal immigration issue.

What's the point of having immigration laws in place that are intended to curtail the flow of immigrants into the USA if the government's gonna grant amnesty to the illegals just because they're already here?

How convenient, the distinction you draw wholesale forgives anything done by the group complaining today, and criminalizes only that being done "against them." And a ridiculously more benevolent less invasive or destructive form of it, let's make no mistake.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Illegal aliens to the US . Numbers indicate it is basically Mexicans to California and somewhat less to Texas . I suggest that the situation is entirely the opposite of what is implied , that the currently atypically high US standard of living ( particularly cheap and unusually plentiful food ) is at least partially due to this considerable source of inexpensive labour . It just doesn't make sense to me . Images of Sikh women on buses , men sleeping under the kitchen sink . Funny that fascist groups ( The National Front ) often or usually oppose immigrant labourers regarding them as expenses not exploitable sources of cheap labour . But slavery and apartheid I would suggest made one group very wealthy . And Chinese labourers here built the railroad . Thinking fruitpickers . We've always done quite well off our slaves . Nectarines .

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

illegal aliens thinking the cannery my mother canning asparagus . Exporting or importing illegally the peasant class . Here also the difference between products and services . Premise that the general social attitude should be gratitude not resentment . Practically what you have is one group willing to be slaves so their children can be idle aristocrats .

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by Benvolio

None of this is relevant. The only question is whether immigration is good for Americans, including blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics. Plainly it is not good.

Then stop pretending it's an outraged argument over legality. No one today takes tantrums over the legions of completely undocumented Irish or Italian or Ukranian or Jewish or German immigration that happened a century ago because no one cares about the legality of it and on the whole it was a good thing that helped build this country.

Originally Posted by loki81

without immigration, US population would be decreasing, potentially putting us in a Japan-esque situation (with a growing elderly population and not enough youth to support their social services)... so it's probably a good thing.

my earlier post was mostly a joke. native Americans had no immigration laws as far as I'm aware, so you can't really call the first European settlers illegal immigrants. I suspect that just about everyone would agree that having fully open borders with absolutely no immigration laws whatsoever probably isn't the greatest idea.

The entire concept of right and wrong is dictated by a written record or which society was keeping written records of laws and who broke them is Eurocentric and gets used much like in this very thread to say Europeans showing up and coercing ownership of the continent through any expedient means was no harm no foul and that the migrant laborer and largely work-driven immigration from Latin America "is actually bad."

Or in short-- who cares if it was 'technically' illegal immigration or not according to a law book written up by people who'd done the very thing they criminalize when others do it.

Yes, of course completely uncontrolled immigration is a bad thing. But the degree to which the immigration we receive is "wink wink nudge nudge" because there is a real need and a real benefit from it, and people are taking advantage of it, is completely underblown in most of these discussions, particularly from the nativist reactionaries.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

The Rule of Law has clearly advanced in the several centuries since European explorers set out around the world. No one then had the skill or the werewithal to govern justly and inclusively. It is not surprising that the exploitive cruelty of the European ruling classes of the day, applied thoroughly to the populations of the home countries, was extended as well to the sparse populations of the colonies.

Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

I am virtually the only one here who ever expresses concern for the poor, or who has a practical plan to help them. Can you point to a single post in which you expressed concern for poor Americans?

Benvolio, you've never demonstrated through anything other than your say-so that a protectionist, isolationist seal the borders approach would help the lower classes in the country. There's plenty of evidence it would seriously hurt the economy, and virtually no proof it would help it. You say it over and over expecting people to accept your say-so on the matter.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

When I was a kid and occasionally still encounter it, my far east asian appearance would engender calls for me to 'get back where I came from'. Yeah, Sheffield, UK, city of my birth.

Truth is, in the UK, the only really historically native peoples are probably the descendents of the Celts, driven to Wales, Scotland and the more further recesses of our country. The Romans, Saxons, Normans, Dutch and other 'white' influx over the millenia have added to the British blood stock, and so, I agree with the native American Indian.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

When I was a kid and occasionally still encounter it, my far east asian appearance would engender calls for me to 'get back where I came from'. Yeah, Sheffield, UK, city of my birth.

Truth is, in the UK, the only really historically native peoples are probably the descendents of the Celts, driven to Wales, Scotland and the more further recesses of our country. The Romans, Saxons, Normans, Dutch and other 'white' influx over the millenia have added to the British blood stock, and so, I agree with the native American Indian.

Actually the were people in Britain for thousands of years prior to the Celts, a few hundred years BC. There is increasing evidence that the first people in the Western Hemisphere were Europeans who came along the edge of the Atlantic ice sheet during the last ice age.called solutreans.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

While the crazy yelling man has a bit of a point, life prior to Columbus was not exactly to fairy land. Indigenous "Americans" did not all settle at the same time. Some people settled. Others came. People fought over land and resources (even in a place with basically no people in it.) The myth of peaceful indigenous societies is just a myth. There was fighting, war, cannibalism, and taking remains as war trophies. Fighting was more limited due to technologies, but it occurred. That is just what humans do. The more powerful groups win. The less powerful groups? They are killed, eaten, or become slaves.

Was anything stolen? Not really. that is the nature of war and the evolution of societies. Technology wins wars. It may not be good, but that is history. Societies are a bit more advanced now (except this place called "America"), so the same actions are generally not accepted. It still happens though. There are constant disputes over resources.

More to the point of the idiot hosts, there was no law of native americans. Not much in terms of "legality" there. So that can be disputed. holy shit, are they stupid. The comparison is dumb. The indigenous people were not exactly welcoming either (to other indigenous groups or meddling outsiders). The real question would be whether western peoples, including them, deserve to have greater access to wealth and resources. Do Americans--5% of global population--deserve to have more than a quarter of the world's wealth? Prolly not. But that means that Americans need to give up a lot. They are not about that. They are greedy western pigs.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by Benvolio

Actually the were people in Britain for thousands of years prior to the Celts, a few hundred years BC. There is increasing evidence that the first people in the Western Hemisphere were Europeans who came along the edge of the Atlantic ice sheet during the last ice age.called solutreans.

"The first Indians were actually Europeans!" is an old myth. Everytime some body is discoverd partially iced or whatever else, everyone throws an absolute hissy fit over who he is and what he is and every single theory from lost Japanese fisherman to lost member of the tribes of Israel to Viking to Native American comes up, and then, they test him and ... oh yeah, he's Native.

Yes there is some evidence that some Vikings or Scandinavians arrived in the far northwestern parts of Canada/U.S. earlier than people thought they did, but still thousands upon thousands of years AFTER the Natives. Sorry.

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

While the crazy yelling man has a bit of a point, life prior to Columbus was not exactly to fairy land. Indigenous "Americans" did not all settle at the same time. Some people settled. Others came. People fought over land and resources (even in a place with basically no people in it.) The myth of peaceful indigenous societies is just a myth. There was fighting, war, cannibalism, and taking remains as war trophies. Fighting was more limited due to technologies, but it occurred. That is just what humans do. The more powerful groups win. The less powerful groups? They are killed, eaten, or become slaves.

Was anything stolen? Not really. that is the nature of war and the evolution of societies. Technology wins wars. It may not be good, but that is history. Societies are a bit more advanced now (except this place called "America"), so the same actions are generally not accepted. It still happens though. There are constant disputes over resources.

More to the point of the idiot hosts, there was no law of native americans. Not much in terms of "legality" there. So that can be disputed. holy shit, are they stupid. The comparison is dumb. The indigenous people were not exactly welcoming either (to other indigenous groups or meddling outsiders). The real question would be whether western peoples, including them, deserve to have greater access to wealth and resources. Do Americans--5% of global population--deserve to have more than a quarter of the world's wealth? Prolly not. But that means that Americans need to give up a lot. They are not about that. They are greedy western pigs.

I don't know that I've ever read a least informed description of indigenous society pre-contact out of anyone who wasn't Rush Limbaugh or on some Thanksgiving Day rant about how Native Americans are welfare-sucking troglodytes. I'm being completely and totally serious here. You were wrong in every single claim you made here and this entire quote was steeped in watercooler American history that has absolutely no bearing on fact or reality.

You really shouldn't speak on this subject when you are this completely uninformed about it.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

"I don't know that I've ever read a least informed description of indigenous society pre-contact out of anyone who wasn't Rush Limbaugh or on some Thanksgiving Day rant about how Native Americans are welfare-sucking troglodytes. I'm being completely and totally serious here. You were wrong in every single claim you made here and this entire quote was steeped in watercooler American history that has absolutely no bearing on fact or reality.

You really shouldn't speak on this subject when you are this completely uninformed about it.

Point out a flaw, [Text: Removed] (claiming that people all came at once, which is just a different theory of settlement, is not really pointing out a flaw). I like truth, not romantic depictions of peoples. Cultural primitivism

People have always engaged in war. They have killed. They have fought. They were just as awful as today (actually more awful, but the same goes for the "civilized" groups of the time).

[Text: Removed] The benefit that "pre-contact" people have is a lack of recorded history. Evidence of warfare, barbarism, and even small scale fighting is denied out of a desire to dehumanize indigenous peoples (they are made into idealistic god-like figures: peaceful people who lived in harmony with nature). There are people who deny the existence of cannibalism because of a supposed lack of evidence. All evidence is insufficient for them. They actually belief that people were somehow better and less human back then. That is just racialist. Positive-racialism, but still disgusting nonetheless.

There are no "owners" of land. It is all transitional. Look at the history of Europe or Africa or Asia. Do you really believe the people who settled in America were any different? That point about "illegal" immigrants historically is nonsense (mostly because of the lack of enforceable law). You want a fun story of whose land is it? Look at the history [Text: Removed].

This is not to say that people were all savages killing everyone 1000 years ago. Just that it happened. It happened 1000 years ago. It happened 50000 years ago. It happened as the species came into existence.

nb: The greater problem here is the attempt to claim that certain others should have an ability to partake in "America's" wealth. That wealth was directly created through the exploitation of other peoples in modern times.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by JustMe5

But there's a big difference between invasions that took place in ancient times when the national boundaries that we know of today did not exist, and illegally entering an established country like the USA and expecting to be granted amnesty instead of entering legally and waiting in line.?

Oh, dear. You're going to upset the liberals with that line of thinking—it contains more logic and reason than they are capable of processing. LOL

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

..

nb: The greater problem here is the attempt to claim that certain others should have an ability to partake in "America's" wealth. That wealth was directly created through the exploitation of other peoples in modern times.

.

Wrong. Most of the wealth was created by the hard work of people wanting to make a better life for themselves and their families.
People who carved farms out of wilderness did not exploit anyone. They couldn't because they were too busy working from dawn til dark.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by itsmejeff

While the crazy yelling man has a bit of a point, life prior to Columbus was not exactly to fairy land. Indigenous "Americans" did not all settle at the same time. Some people settled. Others came. People fought over land and resources (even in a place with basically no people in it.)

Where the fuck to start.

a) Yes original migration was possibly waves of people over some undetermined amount of time, but we're talking really REALLY far back into history, this would not by any means be the explanation of tribal conflicts near enough into prehistory for us to even be talking about them, like the conflicts between teh Iroquois and its enemies or anyone else really. That makes about as much sense as talking about the Irish violence of the later 20th century by talking about migrating tribes of Germanic and European bronze or iron age people into Britain.

b) The only people who ever say something like "the Americas weren't a fairy land of happiness" are people justifying the incredibly brutal history that followed contact by somehow implying that this was nothing the Natives shouldn't have been used to already. Somehow even the very worst of their traditions or customs or conflicts between themselves never reduced the entire population of North American natives to a nadir of about 200,000 people in the 1920's while completely destroying the entire way of life of the vast majority of them, eradicating many of their food sources or reducing nearly all of them to abject poverty and concentration camp conditions. So yes, saying something like "it's not like it was PERFECT here before" is a bullshit statement. It's like saying "it's not like no Jews were ever killed before Hitler."

c) The continents were NOT uninhabited, or "barely had any people in them." There were actually instances of largescale civilization and trade across (and even beyond) the continent prior to contact. It's amazing that you can point out that European diseases in many cases between smallpox and influenza might collectively kill up to 90% of each given tribe and virtually no one disputes this, and yet along comes some white American who then says "well it's not like there were any Indians anyway, hardly anyone was here." How the hell would Europe look after 70-90% of its population was wiped out?

The myth of peaceful indigenous societies is just a myth. There was fighting, war, cannibalism, and taking remains as war trophies. Fighting was more limited due to technologies, but it occurred. That is just what humans do. The more powerful groups win. The less powerful groups? They are killed, eaten, or become slaves.

There are incredibly limited instances of ritualized cannibalism in a LIMITED number of tribes, and it was nothing like "let's go kill people so we can eat them." It was akin to Chinese eating particular animals in the belief that you gain certain strengths or qualities of that animal-- in the case of tribes like the Ojibwe, it was custom to sometimes ritually eat some small bite of a slain enemy to gain his strength and courage. It was if anything a homage-- it was not "cannibalism" in the sense of murdering and eating people for food. There are of course signs that tribes in enormous distress, like the fall of the Anasazi (which remains relatively unexplained) involved cannibalism but every peoples in a desperate situation with no food resort to this, and it was not a representation of their normal practices in general.

Also no one has claimed that all humans anywhere on the globe were "entirely peaceful", again bringing this up is solely to act like what came afterwards at the hands of the colonizing forces subjugating the continent with a legalized notion of Indians as subhumans was nothing new or nothing different. Pure historical revisionism and apologism.

Was anything stolen? Not really. that is the nature of war and the evolution of societies. Technology wins wars. It may not be good, but that is history. Societies are a bit more advanced now (except this place called "America"), so the same actions are generally not accepted. It still happens though. There are constant disputes over resources.

Any historian of any note whatsoever assigns the role of disease as more significant than the role of technology in the ability of Europeans to conquer the continent. The gap between European technology of that day and Native is nowhere near so great as people generally believe today when they picture something like WWI trenches and machine guns with people charging at it with bows or tomahawks. For the great bulk of colonial history guns were slow firing, inaccurate weapons which took a substantial period of time to reload. Benjamin Franklin openly suggested using bow and arrow in the revolutionary war when the colonies faced the possibility of losing their source of refined gunpowder and Indian contingents fought alongside, with and against, almost every colonial power such as in the French & Indian War. The concept that Europeans merely presented their firearms and instantly and easily took over the continent is crap.

More to the point of the idiot hosts, there was no law of native americans.

Native Americans had sophisticated laws which focused on a paradigm of restorative justice over punitive justice as the western model. For example, in the particular case that elicited outrage from nearby whites (who only ever understood hanging and execution as "justice") a tribe dealt within its own laws and customs with a case of Indian-on-Indian murder where a man had murdered another by assigning the man additional work and labor for the rest of his life where he had to supply the slain man's wife and family with food, hunted animals and supplies to make up for their lost provider. This was in accordance to their custom and law and it was ordinary with nearly all of the tribes who followed any sort of migratory pattern where manpower was a premium and where the concept of permanent-built jails or prisons or executing people who were still capable of being contributing members of the community made absolutely no sense. The whites of course seeing the 'murderer' not either dead or behind bars screamed that there was no law in Indian country and as a result a Supreme Court case did away with Indian law (which they had previously retained the right to practice within their own societies by treaty) and subjected all Indians to U.S. legal proceedings.

Natives most certainly had laws, and legal systems, and notions of crimes and punishment, and in fact you'd just as soon turn around and say some of the punishments were too severe by your standards if you were the least bit informed about the entire picture, which you clearly aren't to make a claim like this

Not much in terms of "legality" there. So that can be disputed. holy shit, are they stupid. The comparison is dumb. The indigenous people were not exactly welcoming either (to other indigenous groups or meddling outsiders). The real question would be whether western peoples, including them, deserve to have greater access to wealth and resources. Do Americans--5% of global population--deserve to have more than a quarter of the world's wealth? Prolly not. But that means that Americans need to give up a lot. They are not about that. They are greedy western pigs.

It is estimated for the first 100 years of colonization of the eastern seaboard, the nearby and surrounding Indian tribes had the military and manpower capacity to completely eradicate the European settlements.

They didn't.

There were a very large number of cultural, social and worldview reasons for this. One of them being almost universal Indian notions of human equality-- the Indians never conceived of whites as "non human", or subject to do much worse things to than another enemy simply because they were white, nothing similar to the European racialized notion of a non white non Christian people being fair game to do virtually anything whatsoever to. (In fact the entire basis of all ownership in the U.S. is the Discovery Doctrine, frequently cited even as recently as by former SCOTUS Justice Rehnquist, which basically says: the rights of all non-Christian non-European people are subordinate upon discovery by European Christians.) Another reason would be Indian notions of hospitality-- the colonists were living on land completely indisputed to be within the domain of the Powhatan and other large Indian confederacies, and they were allowed to live there and even allowed to trade or negotiate for more land concessions over time as their populations increased-- hardly the picture of people who just slaughtered and killed outsiders because they were outsiders like you are trying to draw.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

It is hilarious that you say this white claiming Indians had no special right to this continent but now whites do when they don't want Mexicans coming in.

This is not to say that people were all savages killing everyone 1000 years ago. Just that it happened. It happened 1000 years ago. It happened 50000 years ago. It happened as the species came into existence.

No, the European notion of nationalized conquest and subjugation that typified wars in Europe prior to the colonial period and wholesale enslaving or subjugating an entire people to rule by another group was, while extant in the Americas, by far the exception and not the rule. Everyone will immediately say "The Aztecs." Sure. The Aztecs. The Incans. The Mayans. The Mississippi Mound culture likely expanded politically to some degree, so did the Anazasi, neither of which were in existence anymore by the time of contact. And the former three were eradicated by the Spanish. So we have 5 tribes, I'm sure we could find a few more, out of the many hundreds that populated the Americas. There was no dominant history of brutal conquest or the political expansion of one tribe out over others. The Iroquois were a democratic confederacy with representational power shared by all the member tribes.

So yes, saying "well it's just man's nature to conquer and everyone's done it" is revisionism when it is applied in the attempt to say Europeans did nothing more to Natives than Natives (and everyone else) always did to each other. It is, as I said, like saying there were persecutions or murders of Jews before Hitler so what's the big deal.

[Quoted Text: Removed]

[Text: Removed]

Last edited by opinterph; February 20th, 2013 at 01:27 AM.
Reason: removed verbiage quoted from another poster; removed reply to deleted remark

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

I never claimed that societies did not have law. Some type of law is necessary for people to live in groups. That is just how humans work. The natural group size is very small. Laws overcome that. The problem was enforceability of the law. the US violates international law all of the time now, but nothing can be done about it. No one to enforce it.

Ritualized violence is still violence. It is not better, nor admirable (unless you are evil or an American.) It also does not justify the violence that existed either. Population estimates put total native populations in the Americas in the tens of millions. That is a small number of people for a huge landmass. Why is there even a need for war and fighting? Because there was no willingness to share resources (and the need for slaves).

The claim that there was a lack of war because of it not being like western war is hilarious. Historians agree that there was nearly continuous warfare on the American continent. It was smaller scale, but still fighting that resulted in death (and do not claim that human remains damaged by weapons are lying). Resources also seem to be a big part of the fighting as droughts apparently increased occurrences of fighting.

Again, [Text: Removed], I never claimed that all people were violent. The point was to counter this view that indigenous people are somehow rightful property holders or some idealistic stewards of the land. You call me a revisionist. You are applying the specific limited (in terms of culture and time) of certain groups as holding over the entirety of the land and people. There are is "native American" law. There are no "native Americans" as a single group.

That might have been the easiest criticism of the gentleman. The guy is wrong because there was no "we" (his term to refer to his ancestors). There were various groups. Some survived. Some did not. There was no cohesive group.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

btw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Crow_Dog is the case where due to outrage from nearby white settlers at feeling Indian justice didn't match white justice enough the Supreme Court removed Indian rights of trying their own internal crimes.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by Benvolio

Socialism does not help the poor, it just makes everyone equally poor.

This is coming from an outdated and fundamentally flawed notion that communist Russia = socialism when it never truly was, and ignores the 50 or so years of thriving socialist countries from Japan to Sweden that top virtually every list of everything in the first world, whether you're talking about educational standards or quality of life.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Thriving countries? For how long?

Citing homogeneous societies that possess hoarded wealth (and a lot of debt) while being unable to provide the same for the future (very low TFRs) is not exactly proving anything, is it? It is not really a moral way to live; well, unless you are a scumbag who believes that you should get all that you can and fuck everyone else.

It is worse because Europe is very anti-immigrant. Even immigrants from EEA nations. European hoarded wealth is all to be kept for the good of Europe. The rest of the world has to live on the scraps of what is left over.

(this same criticism works for America, only changed to mention that the US is less homogeneous.)

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

I'm delighted to see that JustMe5 and Benvolio have been properly schooled in North American Native History.

One friendly warning [Text: Removed]. Do not refer to posters on this forum as 'Child'. You have made it very clear that this is a device that you use to diminish other posters. I don't care how old you are, the guys that post here are not children and don't deserve or need your patronizing insults.

The other thing I've noticed is that you are very good at making sweeping generalizations like 'Historians agree'. This actually makes your argument appear juvenile compared to those that come with cites and sources.

As someone who grew up in a partly aboriginal community, and was taught by aboriginal teachers, I can tell you that your views and opinions reek of the kind of euro-centric revisionist apologias for the seizure of the continent from the original inhabitants.

What is so ironic, is that while you make the valid argument that history is really only the neverending migration and conquest of one group of people by another....you, along with Benvolio and Reardon don't feel that when it comes to the latinos, the Chinese or the exploding Muslim populations in the middle east, that the same rules should now apply.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

What makes you think European countries are superior in any respect? What would those countries be like without American innovation, especially in the are of medicine and medical devices.

You pull this bullshit argument out of your ass again and again.

Europeans (and Canadians by the way) have done as much or more in the field of medicine and medical devices as the US.

Everything from xrays to insulin, penicillin and Aspirin come from outside the borders. The companies that produce equipment are now totally multi-national and the collaboration includes scientists from around the globe. Like the invention of computed tomography. Or the first heart transplant.

People in Germany, for instance....like those working for Siemens....or in Holland...working at the head offices of Phillips....would read what you have written here and think you must be the stupidest person to have been born.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

BUT X-rays, insulin, penicillin, and aspirin were all developed PRIOR TO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Even now when those countries research, they do it with the knowledge that they can hope to recoup their investment by selling into to huge US market without government price controls. Those corporation heads must be lying awake at night worrying about the catastrophy which has befallen America and the world. Where will they do without us?

- - - Updated - - -

BUT X-rays, insulin, penicillin, and aspirin were all developed PRIOR TO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Even now when those countries research, they do it with the knowledge that they can hope to recoup their investment by selling into to huge US market without government price controls. Those corporation heads must be lying awake at night worrying about the catastrophy which has befallen America and the world. Where will they do without us?

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Well, rareboy, your objection is not well taken. Scroll through this or any other thread and try to find a liberal post which does not contain an personal insult against the Conservative members. No big deal. I don't respect them enough to care about their insults.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

The 'Celts' were johnny-come-latelys to this island ... they only came here a couple of thousand years ago ... this place was already inhabited long before they arrived.

Personally, I think the successive waves of immigration during the past few millenia is probably one of the best things to have happened to Britain.

I cannot agree. The Anglo Saxon invasion was a catastrophe for the Celtic/Roman Britons. Vikings killed and plundered many thousands. The Norman Conquest was one of the worst things ever to befall a people. Now immigration .....
The Celtic invasion was probably as hard on the prior Neolithic people, but no one kept a record.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by Benvolio

I cannot agree. The Anglo Saxon invasion was a catastrophe for the Celtic/Roman Britons. Vikings killed and plundered many thousands. The Norman Conquest was one of the worst things ever to befall a people. Now immigration .....
The Celtic invasion was probably as hard on the prior Neolithic people, but no one kept a record.

Don't worry, benvolio, he's just saying that because he's one of them. It's to be expected.

Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

Benvolio, you've never demonstrated through anything other than your say-so that a protectionist, isolationist seal the borders approach would help the lower classes in the country. There's plenty of evidence it would seriously hurt the economy, and virtually no proof it would help it. You say it over and over expecting people to accept your say-so on the matter.

Maybe he keeps repeating the same lie over and over in hopes that it eventually becomes the truth?

Speaking of truth, the guy in that video gave all those bitches a nice big slice of bitter truth. Preach it, my Native American brother!

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by Benvolio

BUT X-rays, insulin, penicillin, and aspirin were all developed PRIOR TO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Even now when those countries research, they do it with the knowledge that they can hope to recoup their investment by selling into to huge US market without government price controls. Those corporation heads must be lying awake at night worrying about the catastrophy which has befallen America and the world. Where will they do without us?

- - - Updated - - -

BUT X-rays, insulin, penicillin, and aspirin were all developed PRIOR TO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Even now when those countries research, they do it with the knowledge that they can hope to recoup their investment by selling into to huge US market without government price controls. Those corporation heads must be lying awake at night worrying about the catastrophy which has befallen America and the world. Where will they do without us?

Bullshit.

Last I checked, Canada, France, Germany and Holland and Britain as well as Japan all have socialized medicine and the medical devices and drugs and everything just keep coming. Siemens, Phillips, Toshiba and Samsung among others sell more across Europe and Asia than they do to the US. It is the universal health care approach that has helped support the innovation in the industries.

The reason your argument is total bullshit is that it is actually socialized medicine that built the strength of these companies. Without the entire populations of many nations having access to the drugs and technology, the companies that produce them would have a very, very tiny market indeed. You are ignorant of how the rest of the world works...that much is always nakedly evident. You really should stop embarrassing yourself. Really.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Originally Posted by Benvolio

Well, rareboy, your objection is not well taken. Scroll through this or any other thread and try to find a liberal post which does not contain an personal insult against the Conservative members. No big deal. I don't respect them enough to care about their insults.

I could care less how you take my objections. You continue to present bullshit arguments and claims....never backed up by sources.....you continue to hammer away at all of us with your barely disguised racist and xenophobic jingoism in thread after thread. and then expect otherwise.

Re: Native American PWNS immigration protest

Nonsense, I have often given sources. But if the source does not agree with you, you brush it aside. So why bother. The basic facts are indisputable. If you have too many poor people, then import millions more, then you have more poor people than before.